Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 30, 2014 10:00am-10:31am PDT

10:00 am
10:01 am
10:02 am
10:03 am
10:04 am
10:05 am
10:06 am
10:07 am
10:08 am
10:09 am
>> good morning, everyone, welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance subcommittee, i'm mark
10:10 am
farrell and joined by mar and avalos. >> please silence all cell phones and other device and complete your speakers and documents to be submitted to the clerk, items on the may, 6th, board of supervisor's agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. >> we have a number of items, including one hearing, and so could you please call item one? >>resolution authorizing the exercise of an option to extend the lease of 10,000 sq. ft. at 70 oak grove street with ruth mellinger, an unmarried woman, for five years for use by the sheriff's department at $37,208.33 monthly, for the period of may 31, 2014, through may 30, 2019 >> okay, thank you. thanks for being here. always a pleasure, john up dike director of real estate, the item before you here is a lease for 70 oak grove. 70 oak grove, provides programs
10:11 am
that are alternatives for incarceration and reentry programs for released offenders, we have been there about a decade now. and a site that is about 10,000 square feet. and this particular agreement is a lease extension. and it is for a five-year term, and it includes improvements to be made by the landlord to bring the property up to ada compliant standards, and both in the rest rooms and other issues that were involved and it is $500,000 of capitol improvements that landlord will be providing, the new rate is 44.65, and that is a fixed rate for a five year term, we not have an inflater during the five year term, that includes, also, a termination right, with 7 months notice. if we were to effect that termination right there will be
10:12 am
a repayment of some of those ada improvements over that term of five years and so there is a slight cost in an early termination and it was something that we felt that was important to secure, and let me explain why. the city is engaging in the over all program review as part of the justice facility improvement project and looking at opportunities that certain the similar clientele where feasible and at this time, the staff review of the existing program and the lease spaces from which we deliver those programs did not suggest that there is sufficient capacitity, to effect a co-location or a merger and so you some of that discussion in the budget analyst report and a recognition that we are going to do indepth analysis that could yield an opportunity where we could co-locate some
10:13 am
of these programs. if that leads us to the conclusion that we should do an early termination we will have that right. just want to look at the comparable rentals. if you look in the right corner, you will see from 46.31 do 58.38, again, we are at 44.65, we are below every comparable renter that we could find in the area. and so we are very pleased with the final resolution of this and happy to answer the questions that you might have about the lease and also joined by the sheriff's staff who can address any programming questions that you might have. >> supervisor avalos? >> yeah, i think that for the most part, having looked at the budget report and i would be okay with it, but just one question that i have and i am not sure if this is in reference to a 1970s movie, or
10:14 am
perhaps the scarlet letter but why do we have the title of this include muting mellinger an unmarried woman? could we take that out? >> yes. the board attorney and i did have that discussion, this is a clerk of title. when we put in the title of an item we put the title of the property owner, and so by law, the title of the property owner when it is held personally, the marital status is reflected and so we might have john and jane smith husband and wife and that could have been redacted but it is just the public record and the ownership and how it is held and so just the clerk of title. >> it is very strange. >> i understand. >> it seems like we are talking about ancient times, where it is there. >> and that is still how it is. >> is it possible to redact?
10:15 am
>> we can certainly adjust that title, certainly before it goes to the full board. i would be happy to do that. >> thank you, supervisor avalos, i had the exact same question. could you go to the report please? >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee on page 5 of the report we state that it is shown in table three, the base rent for square foot for the year end to be proposed five-year option that increased by $25.64 or 135 percent, from 19.01 per square foot to the 44.65 per square foot that mr. updike just referenced and however that does represent according to the real estate division, 95 percent of fair market value. and it is shown in table three, the total estimated rent in the proposed five-year lease extension payable by the city of 2 million, 189250 is an
10:16 am
increase of 1 million, or 130 percent more than the total rent for the prior five years of $950,500. and also, as was indicated by mr. updike, we do comment in the report on page six that the sheriff's department and the probation department public defender and district attorney all, provide services and where the offenders into the reentry of the community which may overlap and increase rent and other cross, the board of supervisors should request the controller to evaluate if the programs provided by these four departments could be consolidated in order to reduce the lease and other costs according to our judgment on that matter. we recommend on the bottom of page 6, that you do amend the proposed resolution to request the controller to evaluate the reentry programs evaluated by the sheriff's department and the public defender and the
10:17 am
district attorney could be consolidated and we recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. >> any questions for the budget analyst? >> okay. seeing none, we will just open this up to public comment and anybody wish to comment on item number one? >> okay. seeing none, public comment is closed.. college, we have a recommendation to approve the recommendation. >> could i just ask if the rep from the sheriff's department could respond to the recommendation by the budget analyst that there be some effort to analyze, discuss, reentry programs, sheriff's department adult probation, and public defender and district attorney, and thinking about how to potentially consolidate and i think that for the sheriff's department it looks like it is the swap program and the electronic monitoring and the five keys charter school as well. >> chair and supervisors,
10:18 am
horder cfo of the sheriff's department and we are certainly opened to having the controller do such a study. we actually at the beginning of this lease process, looked into in conjunction with the mayor's office, some other spaces particularly the cast and we did not find any synergy, at that time and we would be opened to looking more broadly with all of the community justice partners to find ways that we can more efficiently co-locate services and just for your information, in addition to the services that you mentioned, we also will provide a number of case management and reentry and so this is in addition to the alternatives to the incarceration that you mentioned. >> thanks. and i did visit cast and it is a wonderful new facility, but i understand what you saying and that what the budget analyst is recommending though, is some
10:19 am
kind of evaluation and conversations with all of the different departments and just consider that and so i think that to me that would be a good conversation, and to some analysis from the controller would be really helpful, i think. >> and yes, i will certainly agree and i want the clients to have a sufficient service, when they are not confused about under whose care they are and i need to go to this building for the public defender and this building for adult probation and so we are open to that conversation. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any more questions? >> thanks. >> we have the recommendation in front of us? supervisor mar. >> i will move the recommendation of the budget analyst. >> second. >> we can take those without objection and then the underlying item as amended. >> so moved and we can take that without objection. >> before we move to item two, we are going to mock out the 10:05 meeting. madam clear, could you call one
10:20 am
through four together? >> item number one is,resolution approving the fy2014-2015 home investment partnership (home) program; authorizing the mayor, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to apply for, accept, and expend the city's fy2014-2015 home program entitlement from the u.s. department of housing and urban development in the amount of $4,244,293 and to expend program income in the amount of $30,000 for a combined total of $4,274,293 for the term of july 1, 2014, through june 30, 2019. item number two,resolution approving the fy2014-2015 housing opportunities for persons with aids (hopwa) program; and authorizing the mayor, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to apply for, accept, and expend the city's fy2014-2015 hopwa program entitlement from the u.s. department of housing and urban development in the amount of $8,241,932 and to expend program income and reprogrammed funds in the amount of $647,857 for a combined total of $8,889,789 for the period of july 1, 2014, through june 30, 2019.
10:21 am
item number three,resolution approving the fy2014-2015 emergency solutions grants program; and authorizing the mayor, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to apply for, accept, and expend the city's fy2014-2015 emergency solutions grants program entitlement in the amount of $1,393,730 from the u.s. department of housing and urban development, for an unspecified period starting july 1, 2014. >> item 4,resolution approving the fy2014-2015 community development block grant (cdbg) program; authorizing the mayor, on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, to apply for, accept, and expend the city's fy2014-2015 cdbg program entitlement from the u.s. department of housing and urban development (hud) in the amount of $16,627,564 and to expend program income and reprogrammed funds in the amount of $3,463,354 for a combined total of $20,090,918 for a period beginning july 1, 2014, without an expiration date >> okay, thank you very much. mr. chiu, thanks for being here. >> good morning, chair and members of the committee, brian chiu the director of community development for the mayor's
10:22 am
office of community development and i am here before you to make our annual presentation of our accept and spend resolutions for the four different federal funding sources that we administer and as you may recall, we put out an rfp for the community based organization to apply and to provide services and housing and develop housing, and back in november, we reviewed the proposals in early spring, and we held a public hearing in march so that the members of the community could comment on the recommendations and what we have before you are the final recommendations approved by the committee, and by the mayor's office. and as this is the third year, of a multiyear funding cycle that will remain unchanged from years one and two. and they do want to let you know that we did receive a decrease in a couple of our funding sources, so, our
10:23 am
community development block grant, over all, decreased 3 percent, from 13, 14 to 14, 5 meaning that there was a $528 decrease in our federal allocation and so which simply received over all approximately $400,000 decrease in the hocwa funds and they are spread across a number of jurisdictions and once we spread that out, the decrease on the hawka side is about $76,000, and in order to keep our organizations whole, over the multiyear funding cycle. we did allocate what we called the reprogram dollars what we see in the resolution and occasionally we give the funds for example, for capitol project and don't move forward and there are construction difficulties and so we take those funds and we use it to supplement to that organization. and so that they could rely on
10:24 am
our promise to do our best to keep them whole over the multi, year funding cycle. and you also know that we are going forward with a new five-year, consolidated plan, starting in july of 2015 and we will have to reset and given our new allocations, we have decreased, and we are now at 16 million in 2014, and that is a 8 million dollar decrease and quite significant. and the recommendations remain unchanged. >> what was that amount that was decreased so much, again?
10:25 am
in 2004, 24,137,000 it has decreased, and so it is an over all decrease from 2004, to 2014 of 8,629,000. >> and that was about a 34 percent decrease? >> that is correct. >> we come before you asking for permission to accept and spend these funds in the way layed out in the documents before you and the grantees listed and the document is proposed. >> thank you very much. >> are there any questions? >> okay. no budget analyst report for these items and so we will move to public comment, does anyone wish to comment on the items one through four? >> seeing no public comment, it is closed. we have these items together. >> i will move all of the items with a positive recommendation. >> we can take those without objection. >> yeah. >> that concludes the 10:05
10:26 am
meeting could you go back to regular meeting number two. hearing on and an analysis of cost effective strategies for housing the homeles >> this is the first hearing that we are going to have over the next couple of weeks and i want to thank you for your spisht and anything in these items around the topic, our homeless population and the services that we provide as a service of san francisco and from my perspective, i hope that these hearings are one that analyze what we do today and analyze, it and also as a vehicle to explore new ideas in way that we can change and continue to do better as a city. today's hearing, resolves around looking at how we pay for housing for the homeless and the most cost effective and efficient meth methods.
10:27 am
>> i have meet with many on this issue and i want to thank everyone for their involvement and more importantly for their attention and dedication to this issue and there is no one that is involved in this issue in the city that is not passionate about this topic and i think that passion is really coming through, and i want to thank you for your involvement and i think that it is important to provide an overview, really quickly of the analysis of our different, housing options that we have. and so we can continue to remain accountable for the public and we provide the best services for the homeless population because ultimately as we continue to talk about the human of the day this is a human issue and we need to provide the best services possible and get these people and these individuals that are on the streets the best out comes for their own lives. >> in terms of the different types of housing that we are going to talk about today, i think that there is first of all in terms of emergency shelters. the spaces and we have just
10:28 am
over 1500 shelter beds right now, and 1600 in the winter here in san francisco and consumed about 10 percent of the homeless budget as a city. >> and we are in a temporary situation to stabilize the individuals and have a place of respite off of the streets to move on the to other housing opportunities and i think that the other things that are interesting as we think about the shelter beds is how integral they are in the system today and ten years ago, part of the plan to abolish the homeless, and for a phase out of the shelter and i don't know if that is the right move, but i think that it is an interesting topic that was brought up ten years ago that is has not come to fruition, but what we do have is the people staying longer in the shelters as well and i think that we are going to have this conversation next week and but there are many reasons for that but i think that we need to look at whether it is cost effective to keep doing this and why the people are staying
10:29 am
longer in these situations as well and how they can continue to be more beds available for those on our streets. a large part in san francisco, we have organizations dedicated to the specific subpopulations that we will address in the upcoming weeks and where that be the woman, lgbt community, mentally ill, this is about ten percent of all of the housing stock and 40 percent of the transitional housing is for the families in the city which we believe is a great goal. and we continue to see this as an opportunity, to get the people on the street. and then, lastly, you know, generally supportive housing and so many different definitions if you will to think about supportive housing and the bottom line is the subsidized housing that provides the services, for those here in san francisco, and with the lower incomes that really need our help as a government to get on their two feet and we might need the
10:30 am
government assistance for the rest of their lives and in looking at how we provide that as a city and what are the costs involved and what types of services are we providing and the out comes that we are getting as a result. and about 50 percent of the budget towards homelessness is on supportive housing here in the city about 81 million dollars out of our budget. and one of the great things that i believe, came out of it and the number one goal out of our ten year plan. was to build 3,000 new supportive unit and believe it or not we actually achieve it or we will achieve it shortly and the final ones are in the pipeline, it is a goal and something that we have been able to meet and i want to be sure that we will continue to have a dialogue whether that is the most effective, strategy going forward and i will stay it as a preview, everyone that i talked to think that is the most effective way to go longer term, we are going to hear from a

11 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on